The recent claim on your Journal by Professor McDiarmid suggest a poor scientific approach in discussing the problems connected to the use of Depleted Uranium as a weapon in several conflicts. I'll focus the attention on main aspects of this poor approach.

The number of cases reported is too small to claim for excluding any effect of DU in generating cancer. In fact only 60 cases are considered between US Gulf war veterans, where there are many independent reports which claim for an actual Gulf war syndrome with thousands of cases reported and hundreds of dead.

It is well known that independent reports are not easly accepted by official Journals and also not financied. This does not means that they are less scientifically signi- ficant and should be ignored by the scientific community. For this reason I'll not put any reference in this response in open polemic with official claims that there is no a Gulf war syndrome.

Should be noted that about sixty years of studies on the effects of radiations have only one result which is clear and definitive: exposure to any radioactive material is cause of mutations in DNA sequence, chromosome break and many other phenomena connected to DNA mutagenesis. The DNA mutagenesis is the only cause of cancer both spontaneous and provoked by mutagenic substances.

The small energy associated with Uranium 238 decay which is the main component of Depleted Uranium does not exclude any mutagenic effect especially if inhaled.

It is important to distinguish between mine workers and people exposed to Depleted Uranium weapons. In fact Uranium 238 is pyrophoric and burns easily when exploded. This suggest that a oxide of Uranium is formed when this metal is used as a weapon component.

Is there any study on the biological effects of such Uranium oxides? Several lines of evidence lead me to suggest that Depleted Uranium should be considered dangerus and potentially mutagenic especially when distributed in enormous amounts in a war scenario. Moreover there is a recent claim by the Italian Government that Depleted Uranium is not the only component of NATO weapons. In fact Minister of Italian Defence has claimed that Plutonium may also be present in small amount in DU weapons. Plutonium is formed spontaneously in Uranium mines as well as in nuclear reaction. Plutonium is much more radioactive and much more toxic. These claims have been scientifically and independently evaluated?

In conclusion of this short note I would like to draw the attention on the fact that listing 11 references on a topic so vast and important with a conclusion that there are no evidence of cancer in using Depleted Uranium is antiscientific and superficial. Where the claim is that 50 years' study show non correlation with cancer, my claim is that 60 years' study on radiactivity effects on Human Health strongly prove that there is a correlation between the use of any radioactive material and cancer.

Gino Spinelli
Geneticist, Professor of Microbiology
University of Bari